I'm a superstar. Even the haters admit that.
PAC no one has ever heard of!
Pepsi challenge for AOC critics. Explain how she is a Communist, Socialist, Marxist in the Stalin/Guevara/Venezuela tradition? Cute cartoons aren't an intellectual argument.
She just a dumb puppet of "justice democrats" (lol). No explanation needed.
None given.
It isn't even a catchphrase.
If it is, DarrinS knows way more about that than I ever would
Were it not posted by Darrin, it'd be easy to assume that this post is satirizing the AOC critics midnightpulp is referencing.
She's the gift that keeps on giving, tbh.
Cow farts Cortez
So far no objective analysis of her positions. Just the same old: "What!? She wants to raise taxes! Marxist! Rats in Venezuela!" I'll also have to reiterate that the American Right are probably the biggest "Democratic Socialists" in the modern world (quick definition of Democratic Socialism: Free market + taxes to use on government programs).
Her "positions" are here
https://www.justicedemocrats.com
Let's unpack:
- Green New Deal
I agree that her proposal is unrealistically optimistic, and most likely will never be introduced into law. That doesn't mean anthropocentric climate change isn't a real problem that, as I've stated in prior discussions with you about the topic, needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, per the consensus of the scientific community. Maybe conservatives can offer counter proposals rather than fear monger about banned air travel and cheeseburger confiscation.
- Secure a living wage and tie it to inflation
Bad how? Minimum and living wage has not kept pace with inflation, while wealth growth among the top earners has outpaced inflation.
As I've said before. Supply-side economics had a 40 year trial. It did not "trickle down." Time to think up something new.
- Enact a federal jobs guarantee.
A little over-optimistic, but could be feasible. We already have some form of a "federal jobs guarantee" in the American military, which is usually an option for those from low income backgrounds or those lacking a higher education who can't find a well paying job in the conventional private sector. But instead of wasting trillions on wars, silly fighter planes, and 600 bases around the world, none of which benefit Americans, we cut defense spending in half. Then we put that difference toward creating more domestic federal jobs that are centered on actually benefitting Americans rather than using that money to devise more ways to kill goat herders.
- Rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.
This was a key selling point for Lord Trump during his campaign, promising to build infrastructure that is "second to none." Don't see any downsides here, except "concern" that it might bite into our defense spending budget (which continues to get near-trillion dollar bumps, while we have yet to see one dollar spent on infrastructure overhaul).
- Block bad trade deals.
Also a key selling point during Lord Trump's campaign.
- End tax loopholes.
No reasonable person would be against this.
- End necessary wars and nation building.
No reasonable person would be against this.
- Medicare for all.
I went into detail in prior posts how this can easily work (also, we can look at the successful implementation of this in other countries as proof of concept).
- Free public colleges and trade schools.
Other countries employ this with success.
I'll cut it short, but I see nothing "radical" in any of the subsequent proposals, even abolishing ICE, which is just more government bloat (we already enough law enforcement agencies in the country).
Sound to me like the core objection to Cortez's platform is same as it ever was from those on the right: "More taxes! Y-Y-You m-m-mean I have to be a little bit more selfless so that my fellow Americans who weren't as fortunate as me can live a more flourishing life!? that. I need that extra 10K per year that will have no measurable effect on my standard of living since I want a new fishing boat! I earned it! Those people who can't achieve upward economic mobility are just lazy! BOOTSTRAPS!"
"Earn your way in America." God I love how this college admissions scandal has blown up the "Bootstrap" concept. has been going for decades. And this same type of nepotism and cronyism exists at even worse levels in the private sector.
The key is quality K-12 to build a good foundation and of course family structure.
I don't disagree, just that this scandal has exposed that people with ty foundations, ty education, ty morals, and ty family structures (the family structures of the wealthy are often dysfunctional) can cheat their way to success through money and connections, at the expense of those who played by the rules. I'm not saying your average upper-middle class American (~150K-250K median family income) didn't earn what they have, just when you start getting into the multimillionaire class, my bull detector goes way, way up when someone says they "bootstrapped" themselves to that level through hard, smart, and ethical work. Call me cynical, but I have more reason to believe the cynical position over fairy tale Horatio Alger myths.
They got into the school but my increasingly declining support for Universities has at least enough faith to assume they can't cheat their way thru the department and to an eventual degree. Even then it doesn't guarantee them a career
For them, it's really more about being able to add Yale, Harvard, Princeton grad to their resume, which unfortunately gets the attention of potential employers more than graduating from "lesser universities." The way they can bull their way to a degree is by taking easier courses, buying or paying people to do term papers (https://slate.com/human-interest/200...er-online.html), and cheating on exams. These types will no doubt be a part of a frat/sorority, and then subsequently use that network of "brothers and sisters" in the real world to secure some job position. Sure, they most likely will now have to prove competence in the real world when real profits are stake, but these people aren't totally dumb, and can likely meet the bare minimum standards of performance to keep their position.
Which is why it's weird that you can't articulate your opposition to her in more than a few snarky jabs. She provides so much material yet your takes are so void of substance.
As I said in my length reply to Darren, the objection to politicians like AOC, Warren, Sanders etc from the right always boils down to antipathy toward increased taxes (which politicians like AOC don't even want to raise/raise by a significant amount on people of Darren's class). As I concluded in that post:
Why irritates me is not necessarily the selfishness of this mentality, it's that conservatives won't/can't admit that their resistance to higher taxation is out of narrow self-interest rather than "what's best for America." They can just say it. "Yeah. It's my money, and I want as much of that money as possible to go toward my personal interests. I don't really care about the food insecurity of people in Detroit. I have my own to worry about."Sounds to me like the core objection to Cortez's platform is same as it ever was from those on the right: "More taxes! Y-Y-You m-m-mean I have to be a little bit more selfless so that my fellow Americans who weren't as fortunate as me can live a more flourishing life!? that. I need that extra 10K per year that will have no measurable effect on my standard of living since I want a new fishing boat! I earned it! Those people who can't achieve upward economic mobility are just lazy! BOOTSTRAPS!"
And I honestly wouldn't think less of them for that position. Wealth is a finite resource you can potentially lose at any time due to unforeseen cir stances, so I can understand the "what if?" anxiety in this regard. Just don't try to bull and say that you making an extra 15K per year through a tax break helps the working poor in Detroit. It doesn't. Nor does giving Bezos a few extra billion. As I've shown numerous times, the data has proved trickle-down to be a fraud.
Self interest is usually the only argument for lower taxation that holds up on objective scrutiny. Like similar debates over guns, the conservative position on taxation typically gets bogged down in hypotheticals and philosophical arguments that have no historical precedent. At best. At worst, you find yourself debating people who don't even understand the basics of tax brackets.
So I agree, better to just say, "I want to keep my income," then we can talk about how we pay for all of the stuff we need.
Ocasio-Cortez de-listed from board of Justice Democrats after controversy
Is getting rid of the Electoral College radical - yes or no?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
